Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 389 posts

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#341

Post by lostPixels »

legodt wrote: post #163
aaron-lebo wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you not heard of the Nation of Islam? You know that the 7/7 Dallas shooter (Micah Johnson) was inspired by black supremacist hate speech, right?

The nation of Islam is a horribly depressing group also standing on a platform kf misogyny and anti semitism. They are an extremist group that luckily has been waning in recent years. Also, unlike white people, they have never held a monopoly on power, instated discriminatory laws, stopped white people from securing proper jobs or housing, or became police offers that then killed white people with impunity.

If you actually remove "Nation of Islam" and replace it with "Islam" and look globally, your comment will make sense.

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#342

Post by lostPixels »

Sacho wrote: post #301
dliotev wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...being racist against white people doesn't really mean much..." In case you didn't know: these words incite hate towards a group of people based on their skin color. In other words, you are advocating racism. You've just exposed yourself as a racist.

I believe the parent is a proponent of the theory of racial relations that defines racism as "prejudice + power". I don't think I'm eloquent enough to sum up the idea, so here's a link to a paper that analyzes this proposed meaning among others: http://www.andover.edu/About/Newsroom/TheMagazine/Documents/...

Why do the people trying to rearrange the meaning of the term "racism" always seem to also be racist in terms of the traditional meaning, which is discriminating against others based on race.

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#343

Post by moskie »

adekok wrote: post #333
moskie wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but can you at least recognize that conflating what's happening here to men (an internet campaign that has no signs of manifesting in the real world in any significant way) vs. what Jews have experienced is not a useful thing to do? It is a huge false equivalence. You can believe that both are bad, while also saying that one of the two is much, much worse to the point that the comparison is unjust.

> an internet campaign that has no signs of manifesting in the real world in any significant way Then you're not paying attention. See my other links. > You can believe that both are bad, while also saying that one of the two is much, much worse to the point that the comparison is unjust. Your argument comes across that advocating genocide isn't really that bad, because they don't really intend to do it, and anyways,…

Your idea that men and Jews are equivalently oppressed, to the point where you seem to believe it is invalid to point out that these situations are different and require different responses, is psychotic and incredibly toxic, and I will not humor it. The evidence you provide is an overtly anti-Semitic subreddit that makes its "point" by minimizing the Holocaust via a word game, and yet you question my morals. I see a world where the "oppression" of men takes the form of a handful of anecdotes of people saying mean things (that I concede they should not say), compared the oppression of Jews that takes the form of systemic violence (https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2012/topic-pages/victims/vict... "62.4 percent [of anti-religious hate crime victims] were victims of an offender’s anti-Jewish bias."). The willful non-recognition that these are different types of issues that require different responses is naked bigotry.

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#344

Post by dragonwriter »

Sacho wrote: post #301
dliotev wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...being racist against white people doesn't really mean much..." In case you didn't know: these words incite hate towards a group of people based on their skin color. In other words, you are advocating racism. You've just exposed yourself as a racist.

I believe the parent is a proponent of the theory of racial relations that defines racism as "prejudice + power". I don't think I'm eloquent enough to sum up the idea, so here's a link to a paper that analyzes this proposed meaning among others: http://www.andover.edu/About/Newsroom/TheMagazine/Documents/...

It's not a useful redefinition. Certainly, degree of power affects the impact of racism, but there is always some power involved in any prejudice, and even prejudice by members of a generally disadvantaged group against members of a generally advantaged group will end up manifesting in contexts where the individuals involved are in different power relationships than the group power dynamics in the broader society would suggest.

In fact, the redefinition is often invoked to justify as not-racist acts that are racist even in terms of the redefinition when the context of the action is considered, because it's usually coupled with a misdirection about power relations in a different, usually broader, context than is relevant to the action in question.

Avoiding the redefinition entirely and talking about racial bigotry and the power relations which magnify it's impacts as distinct and interacting things, rather than trying to set an arbitrary standard of what degree of the latter is necessary for the former to deserve to be called racism is far more productive, if not as convenient for providing certain racists cover.

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#345

Post by module0000 »

nameless912 wrote: post #16
module0000 wrote: post #3

People love having their speech limited, I'm sure this will work out great for twitter.

This isn't the limitation of free speech, this is a private company telling one of its users that they aren't welcome due to their behavior. It's like if you were at a store and started soapboxing about loudly right in front of the register, the manager of the store is 100% allowed to ask you to leave. Freedom of speech means your speech isn't illegal , not that you will suffer no consequences for it. ETA: some peopl…

> This isn't the limitation of free speech

I'm not talking about free speech. This is a company that didn't censor , deciding to censor . I'm sure the users that discussed/read/were-interested-in will be thrilled. That is all.

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#346

Post by LyndsySimon »

maxerickson wrote: post #275
LyndsySimon wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dozens of people in my close social circles identify as "alt-right", and none of them are remotely sexist or racist.

Do they understand what is happening to the label that they identify with? Do they seek to make a clear statement about what they believe the alt right stands for? If they let some definition take hold that includes racism, then in the future when they object to saying that the alt right is racist, they aren't standing up for what they believe in anymore, they are providing cover for the racists that stole the label…

Racists are not the people who are defining the term - it's the left and the media.

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#347

Post by LyndsySimon »

Mithaldu wrote: post #257
LyndsySimon wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're missing the point. I'm trying to say that that from this side of the aisle, it certainly seems that the prevailing opinion amongst Democrats is that the Republican Party is full of terrible people.

half There is not more to say than that. Pretty sad that a foreigner needs to teach you English.

The difference between "half" and "most" is literally infinitely small, as "most" literally means "more than half".

But again, I'm not arguing that Clinton said that most Trump supporters are racist. I'm arguing that the prevailing belief amongst Democrats is that racism and sexism is both common and accepted within the GOP. That's utter nonsense.

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#348

Post by LyndsySimon »

Mithaldu wrote: post #331
reitanqild wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I give you an upvote for that. But I think the idea is clear and you are needlessly discussing over one word instead of focusing on how this could happen. (Yes, I don't like Trump but I think we - at least Europeans - should respect Americans and their choice.)

Here's my reason why there's nothing i can respect there: One of my best friends is a person in the USA, requiring constant medical support (literally one skipped day can kill them) in a queer marriage. The people directly around trump would rather see my friend die, alone. Not all of the people who voted for him, by far. Many are not even aware of the consequences this has already had. (Yes, various friends of mine…

> But respect? For casting a vote to spite people? For casting a vote without having done proper research?

You seem to be assuming that no one voted for Trump, only against Hillary.

Personally, I voted for him because I support his Supreme Court nominees and his gun rights platform.

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#349

Post by [deleted] »

kelukelugames wrote: post #85
thro32 wrote: post #19

How about suspending people who openly advocate genocide? #killallmen

As an able bodied straight male working in tech, I don't understand how any man can be offended by the killallmen hashtag. I don't feel threatened. They can't even hurt my feelings. Offended men must be very soft and have small dongles.

[deleted]

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#350

Post by Mithaldu »

LyndsySimon wrote: post #347
Mithaldu wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

half There is not more to say than that. Pretty sad that a foreigner needs to teach you English.

The difference between "half" and "most" is literally infinitely small, as "most" literally means "more than half". But again, I'm not arguing that Clinton said that most Trump supporters are racist. I'm arguing that the prevailing belief amongst Democrats is that racism and sexism is both common and accepted within the GOP. That's utter nonsense.

Then you should have said those words instead of stomping in with a quote, a counter quote and a mic drop.
Post reply on HN